I mean, I'm pretty sure the only racist stereotype that exists these days is the assumption that every minority whines about racism constantly, so it's not like "Redskins" has any particular negative connotation.

And the proposal to change the name from Redskins to Foreskins does sound amusing, but it doesn't really solve the problem, since I believe Jews will find it offensive.

I have a suggestion for a nickname for anyone who is against changing the name of the Redskins team: Skinheads.

If you have a problem with that, too bad. You should grow that thicker skin you're telling Native Americans to grow.

You're an idiot. The two are not alike at all. The difference between you calling me a skinhead is that you clearly have a negative intention behind it. Meanwhile, the team name of Redskins has no negative intention behind it at all. The first is clearly an insult, the latter is clearly just a name.

Also, nice job assuming I have no native american blood coursing through my veins. I guess anyone who has a logical reason to oppose this name change must be a racist and most certainly white.

I have a suggestion for a nickname for anyone who is against changing the name of the Redskins team: Skinheads.

If you have a problem with that, too bad. You should grow that thicker skin you're telling Native Americans to grow.

You're an idiot. The two are not alike at all. The difference between you calling me a skinhead is that you clearly have a negative intention behind it. Meanwhile, the team name of Redskins has no negative intention behind it at all. The first is clearly an insult, the latter is clearly just a name.

Also, nice job assuming I have no native american blood coursing through my veins. I guess anyone who has a logical reason to oppose this name change must be a racist and most certainly white.

If you look up skinhead in wikipedia you'll notice that there isn't necessarily a negative connotation. You're being too sensitive if you think that being a skinhead is always bad- it's just a word that sometimes has connections to racism. Skinheads against racism exist, for example.

Maybe you should practice what you preach and grow a thicker skin.

Let me add that I merely noted in my original post the possibility that some super sensitive people might take offense, but I never said that being a skinhead was a bad thing and I didn't actually use it with a negative intention- just an illustrative one. Any such negative intention is something you incorrectly read into it.

I have a suggestion for a nickname for anyone who is against changing the name of the Redskins team: Skinheads.

If you have a problem with that, too bad. You should grow that thicker skin you're telling Native Americans to grow.

You're an idiot. The two are not alike at all. The difference between you calling me a skinhead is that you clearly have a negative intention behind it. Meanwhile, the team name of Redskins has no negative intention behind it at all. The first is clearly an insult, the latter is clearly just a name.

Also, nice job assuming I have no native american blood coursing through my veins. I guess anyone who has a logical reason to oppose this name change must be a racist and most certainly white.

If you look up skinhead in wikipedia you'll notice that there isn't necessarily a negative connotation. You're being too sensitive if you think that being a skinhead is always bad- it's just a word that sometimes has connections to racism. Skinheads against racism exist, for example.

Maybe you should practice what you preach and grow a thicker skin.

First, I never preached "grow a thicker skin" in this thread. If you wanna throw down on insults, I won't pass on the opportunity to challenge you.

Second, congrats on using Wikipedia. Let's disassemble your bullshit here and now and expose you for the liar and charlatan you really are. This whole debate has started because "Redskins" has been deemed inherently racist term. I have contended throughout that no word is inherently racist, and that intentions must be taken into account. Otherwise, you fall into the trap of an endless crusade against the dictionary as you ban one word to the next. Furthermore, such a crusade ignores the development of words in the first place. It's clearly an illogical position to hold.

Now, let's examine the definitions of "skinhead." The Oxford English Dictionary holds the following:

1990 K. Fleming U.S. Marine Corps in Crisis 61 Greene also announced his decision to abolish the traditional ‘skinhead’ recruit haircut in favor of a modified ‘crew cut’.

2003 J. Schmitt Wasteful 40 As if to make an effect on..the twenty two year old skinhead Marine next to him he adds, ‘I like your braces.’

And then the second definition:

b. orig. Brit. A person, typically a young man, belonging to any of various subcultures identified by having the hair very closely cropped or shaved off entirely; spec. such a person holding extreme, esp. racist, views and behaving in a way that is regarded by others as aggressive or violent. Also in more general use (chiefly U.S.): any person whose hair is cropped short or shaved off entirely. Cf. suedehead n. at suede n. Compounds 2.
Skinheads originated in the United Kingdom in the late 1960s as a working-class subculture associated with the mod (mod n.4) movement. In the 1970s they became associated with punk, and, particularly by the end of the decade, with football hooliganism. In other parts of the world they are sometimes known by different names: see sharpie n. 3.

1969 Daily Mirror 3 Sept. 12/1 A group of teenagers..wear tight and rather short jeans, collarless T-shirts, exposed braces, big steel-capped boots and hair erased almost to their scalps. The lack of hair is what gives them their generic names..crop-heads, skin-heads or peanuts. The boots are good for kicking.

1981 Times 22 July 11/3 ‘There's good and bad skinheads,’ is as far as he will go... The picture is complicated: there are black skins, and there are non-violent skins... Certainly, many of the skins are thugs.

1986 J. Burchill Sex & Sensibility (1992) 132 Most youth cults, because they were essentially about male bonding, had a large element of Lad inherent in them: Teds, Rockers, Mods, Skinheads, punks, Ois.

1993 New Republic 2 Aug. 47/1 We all heard about (and shuddered at) the torching of Turkish Muslim gastarbeiter by German skinheads in Rostock last spring.

1999 S. Home in T. White Britpulp! 221 ‘I want all you skinheads out there to put your braces together,’ Wood tugged, ‘and your boots on your feet and give me some of that old moonstomping!’

2005 A. Masters Stuart xvii. 179 You had rockers, casuals, punks, mods, three different types of skinhead: ska skinhead, like I said already, right-wing skinhead, scooter-skinhead.

And then the third definition:

2. colloq. (orig. and chiefly U.S.). A person with little or no hair, a ‘baldy’; (also occas.) the head of such a person. Cf. slaphead n.

2003 Attitude Dec. 6/2, I know we've only ever seen him with his bonce covered..but I've always thought that under those caps there has been a lovely skinhead or similar!

Now, you could very well be using this term in a way that isn't intended as derogatory, but it seems far from it I would wager. How would I know? Well, it's simple actually. I just apply the method of using context clues, something any intelligent person learns before the fifth grade. Labeling someone as bald or having short hair really seems out of place in this discussion. So assuming that you're using those definitions really wouldn't be the right choice. Therefore, it would be safe to assume you are getting at definition #2, which explicitly labels those people as extremely racist. Why assume definition #2 was your intended use? Well considering racism has been the main subject of this thread, I think it is fairly safe to assume such.

Now maybe you're simply trying to make the point that if anti-name changers have said that people should chill out over mere insults, then you think that they should be ready to tolerate insults themselves. I assume this because you have boiled down anti-name changers' argument to "grow a thicker skin." I must say though, that is not the argument of anti-name changers at all. Anti-name changers assert that given the context, the name "Redskins" for the football team is clearly not racist. Anti-name changers assert that the context of a word's use must be taken into account to judge its meaning.You've clearly forgotten to take context into account when acknowledging the other side's argument. As a result, you basically argued against a strawman (an argument that no one has made). Furthermore, you intentionally used a word in an insulting way to generalize the entire opposition as racists. I must now ask: Who's the tolerant one now?

Don't pretend you can read my mind- you know what it's called when you put words in other people's mouths? It starts with S and ends with trawman.

I merely packaged together the word skin (which is part of the word Redskin) and head in a way similar to "cheesehead" which is mostly known as a term for Packers fans and very rarely used as a racial slur against the Dutch. Stop being so super sensitive.

Don't pretend you can read my mind- you know what it's called when you put words in other people's mouths? It starts with S and ends with trawman.

I merely packaged together the word skin (which is part of the word Redskin) and head in a way similar to "cheesehead" which is mostly known as a term for Packers fans and very rarely used as a racial slur against the Dutch. Stop being so super sensitive.

If you're going to play word games, then shouldn't they at least be fun? Not stupefyingly boring?

I never read your mind, but neither was I born yesterday. As the saying goes: if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and sounds like a duck, then it must be a duck. You called the other side of the argument racist. And when someone called you on it, leaving you no room to "claim" victory, you try to play it off like a joke.

There is nothing sensitive to proving someone wrong, as I have done against you. If anyone is sensitive, I would think it to be you, yourself precisely because now you're trying to play this off as some boring word game. Those who are insecure with losing an argument on fair grounds are generally the most weak of people. The stronger of people would admit defeat, and either refine their position OR adopt a new one entirely.

Don't pretend you can read my mind- you know what it's called when you put words in other people's mouths? It starts with S and ends with trawman.

I merely packaged together the word skin (which is part of the word Redskin) and head in a way similar to "cheesehead" which is mostly known as a term for Packers fans and very rarely used as a racial slur against the Dutch. Stop being so super sensitive.

If you're going to play word games, then shouldn't they at least be fun? Not stupefyingly boring?

I never read your mind, but neither was I born yesterday. As the saying goes: if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and sounds like a duck, then it must be a duck. You called the other side of the argument racist. And when someone called you on it, leaving you no room to "claim" victory, you try to play it off like a joke.

There is nothing sensitive to proving someone wrong, as I have done against you. If anyone is sensitive, I would think it to be you, yourself precisely because now you're trying to play this off as some boring word game. Those who are insecure with losing an argument on fair grounds are generally the most weak of people. The stronger of people would admit defeat, and either refine their position OR adopt a new one entirely.

You're going to have to point out exactly where I said the other side of the argument is racist. Nowhere have I said such a thing. I may not have been entirely serious, but I'm not joking when I was making my point that I could show that I could mean no harm in a word and that it wouldn't necessarily be taken that way. I'm merely demonstrating that my claim to not mean anything insulting or racist wouldn't be taken at face value.

Also, I don't know if I need to point this out, but have I called you an idiot? Have I called you insecure? If I haven't done those things, it's because I don't feel like I've had to resort to such childishness because my feelings are fine and I haven't lost any arguments.

Don't pretend you can read my mind- you know what it's called when you put words in other people's mouths? It starts with S and ends with trawman.

I merely packaged together the word skin (which is part of the word Redskin) and head in a way similar to "cheesehead" which is mostly known as a term for Packers fans and very rarely used as a racial slur against the Dutch. Stop being so super sensitive.

If you're going to play word games, then shouldn't they at least be fun? Not stupefyingly boring?

I never read your mind, but neither was I born yesterday. As the saying goes: if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and sounds like a duck, then it must be a duck. You called the other side of the argument racist. And when someone called you on it, leaving you no room to "claim" victory, you try to play it off like a joke.

There is nothing sensitive to proving someone wrong, as I have done against you. If anyone is sensitive, I would think it to be you, yourself precisely because now you're trying to play this off as some boring word game. Those who are insecure with losing an argument on fair grounds are generally the most weak of people. The stronger of people would admit defeat, and either refine their position OR adopt a new one entirely.

You're going to have to point out exactly where I said the other side of the argument is racist. Nowhere have I said such a thing. I may not have been entirely serious, but I'm not joking when I was making my point that I could show that I could mean no harm in a word and that it wouldn't necessarily be taken that way. I'm merely demonstrating that my claim to not mean anything insulting or racist wouldn't be taken at face value.

Also, I don't know if I need to point this out, but have I called you an idiot? Have I called you insecure? If I haven't done those things, it's because I don't feel like I've had to resort to such childishness because my feelings are fine and I haven't lost any arguments.

I've already pointed out pretty explicitly where you called the opposing side racist. Also, there is nothing wrong with calling someone an idiot after they have called you a racist. It's fair game in my book. Tit for tat. Furthermore, name-calling isn't necessarily childish. It could easily be calling something for what it is, which is what I contend in my case. If anyone is childish, it's you. You call the other side of the debate all racists because they disagree with you. You never even addressed the actual arguments they made. That's pretty childish.

You have lost on every single argument. I've been pretty thorough as to explain how you intended to use the word "skinhead" against those who you disagree with. In addition, you've yet to counter my argument that your initial assumption of the other side's argument, "grow a thicker skin" is, in fact, a non-existent one.

By all means, keep insisting that you intended to use the word in a non-offensive manner, which contextually doesn't fit this thread at all. I'll simply keep calling you out on BS. It isn't too difficult to disprove the same arguments over and over again.

I've already pointed out pretty explicitly where you called the opposing side racist. Also, there is nothing wrong with calling someone an idiot after they have called you a racist. It's fair game in my book. Tit for tat. Furthermore, name-calling isn't necessarily childish. It could easily be calling something for what it is, which is what I contend in my case. If anyone is childish, it's you. You call the other side of the debate all racists because they disagree with you. You never even addressed the actual arguments they made. That's pretty childish.

You have lost on every single argument. I've been pretty thorough as to explain how you intended to use the word "skinhead" against those who you disagree with. In addition, you've yet to counter my argument that your initial assumption of the other side's argument, "grow a thicker skin" is, in fact, a non-existent one.

By all means, keep insisting that you intended to use the word in a non-offensive manner, which contextually doesn't fit this thread at all. I'll simply keep calling you out on BS. It isn't too difficult to disprove the same arguments over and over again.

Sorry, but the word "skinhead" does not automatically mean racist. It only actually denotes a hairstyle. If you take it to mean racist and automatically attack someone without asking for clarification, you don't come off as looking particularly bright or capable of understanding irony.

(I will accept the possibility that you are incapable of understanding why Native Americans don't like the term Redskin, however.)

I don't really see why it's impossible for a person to see "skinhead" as a harmless term yet understand that other people may not like it. It's no different from insisting that the word Redskin is similarly harmless.